Research Expenditure (Hansard, 1 July 1999)

§ 2. Mr. Derek Twigg Halton)
How much money will be spent by his Department on research in the current financial year. [87915]

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
The Ministry's budget for research and development in 1999–2000 is £125 million. The House will be interested to know that an example of such expenditure is a report that is being published today by the Institute of Occupational Medicine on the effects of exposure to organophosphate sheep dips, which was commissioned by the previous Government in 1995. It is a very important report, about which I shall give a further, longer written answer later today.

§ Mr. Twigg
Will my hon. Friend pursue his analysis with the Government's scientific adviser at the utmost speed? Will he be talking to manufacturers of sheep dips?

§ Mr. Rooker
We shall immediately refer the report that has been published today, which is based on the research that we have funded, to the Veterinary Products Committee and the special sub-committee of the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. I am asking manufacturers of sheep dips for urgent meetings early next week.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
The Government have recently been forced to make significant cuts in the research budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in many other areas of its expenditure, as a result of the mushrooming of the Phillips inquiry, the very tight settlement on running costs which was accepted under the comprehensive spending review and the failure to sell Covent Garden market. Yesterday, the permanent secretary made it clear to the Select Committee on Agriculture that MAFF expenditure remains very tight. What assurance can the Minister give that there will be no further unforeseen cuts in the research and development budget or other important areas of the Ministry's programmes?

§ Mr. Rooker
We are not planning any more unforeseen cuts. The cuts have been regrettable. We are very much a 415 science-based Ministry—all the £125 million R and D budget is policy-driven; none is blue-skies research. Given our running costs of less than £700 million, hon. Members will realise the scale of MAFF's science base. We are not planning further reductions and will be very careful about those that we have had to make simply due to the comprehensive spending review. All key areas of MAFF's work in R and D will certainly continue.

§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)
If the Institute of Occupational Medicine's scientific report suggests further investigation into the long-term adverse health effects caused by short-term exposure to organophosphates, will MAFF fund it, and to what extent?

§ Mr. Rooker
The report is very large. There is a suggestion of further research, although it is clear from volume 1 that the institute has discovered a source of problems with OP sheep dips that relates to farmers or users coming into contact with the concentrate, giving unexpected results. We shall pursue that urgently with our scientific advisers.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
As chairman of the all-party organophosphate groups, I very much welcome the report and the statement that the Minister has just made. However, will he address the very serious concerns of victims, who have been waiting for the report for many years? They and the all-party group very much welcome the proactive attitude of the Minister and his colleagues, which contrasts with that of their predecessors, who always seemed to find excuses not to do anything. Will he give us an idea of the proposed timetable? How soon will COT—the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—report, and how soon after that will he be able to tell the House what action he proposes to take to help those whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by exposure to those very dangerous chemicals?

§ Mr. Rooker
As I said in my initial answer—I want to be absolutely fair about this—the report that is published today, funded by MAFF, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Health, was originally commissioned in 1995 by our predecessors. Given that it has taken a while and that the research took place over several years, we have nevertheless set up a sub-committee of COT to consider the wider issue of OPs, well beyond their use in sheep dips. The report to be published today will be referred to COT urgently, but it is also being referred to the Veterinary Products Committee urgently for a preliminary assessment. In addition, I have asked to meet the manufacturers as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
As a member of the all-party group, I also welcome the announcement but is it possible, without pre-judging the matter, to suspend the use of OPs until such further research has been commissioned and received?

§ Mr. Rooker
If we are to ban or suspend the use of OP sheep dips, I must have a really good reason—one that is judge-proof, so that some sleek lawyer does not run round the corner and unstitch what we have done. That is why we are sending the report urgently to our own scientific advisers on the Veterinary Products Committee 416 for an urgent pre-assessment, and speaking to the manufacturers. COT, which is considering the wider issue, will report before the end of the year. I shall not wait until the end of the year, however, for an assessment by our scientific advisers of the report published today to see whether they can recommend any preliminary action that we could take before that.